Cameron doesn’t understand the Scotland debate

Alex Salmond isn't interested in a "binding" referendum - he’s interested in winning a democratic ma

In an interview on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday, David Cameron revealed that he was planning to bring forward proposals which he hoped would settle the "uncertainty" surrounding Scotland's constitutional future in a "fair, decisive and legal" way. This raised suspicions that the Prime Minister was about to call a pre-emptive, Westminster-led referendum on the break-up of Britain.

In the event, nothing so dramatic transpired. Instead, Cameron has made an offer to Alex Salmond: hold an independence poll within eighteen months on the basis of a straight-forward Yes/No question, and Westminster will grant formal legal status to whatever result it produces. Refuse, and any future referendum run by the Scottish Parliament will be nothing more than advisory -- a kind of glorified opinion poll.

There are a couple of reasons why this must have appeared to the Tory leader as a clever political manoeuvre. First of all, if Salmond were to accept, he would forfeit the power to set the timing and wording of the ballot, both of which will be crucial in determining the outcome of the vote. Secondly, it hands a degree of initiative back to the Unionist parties, which have so far struggled to contain the SNP's juggernaut momentum.

On closer inspection, however, Cameron's intervention represents a rather clumsy and unthinking lurch into a debate he obviously doesn't fully understand. 

The SNP is under no illusions about where constitutional authority in the UK lies. The nationalists know full well that for any referendum on Scottish secession to be binding, it would have to be ratified by the Westminster Parliament which remains - despite devolution - ultimately sovereign under the terms of the British constitution. It follows, then, that Alex Salmond has never intended to hold anything other than a non-binding or advisory referendum. What matters to him is that he secures a clear democratic mandate from the Scottish people to pursue the further transfer of powers from London to Edinburgh or, if he's really lucky, the creation of an independent Scottish state. The First Minister reckons he is more likely to get one or other of these things if he delays a poll until his preferred date of 2014 or 2015, after the full effects of the coalition's cuts have begun to bite and Scottish resentment toward the Tories un-mandated austerity drive has hit fever pitch.

But if the SNP rejects Cameron's offer -- and on the basis of this press release, it already has -- will it not be exposed to accusations of obstructionism? Is Salmond not taking a huge political risk by denying Scots the opportunity to vote sooner rather than later on an issue of such critical importance? One might think so. Yet, the opposition parties at Holyrood have been putting forward arguments like this literally every week since the SNP won a parliamentary majority last May and the only discernable effect has been to push nationalist poll ratings up, not down. At the last count, the SNP registered 51 per cent support, while Alex Salmond himself remains phenomenally popular.

So, before Cameron congratulates himself for having achieved what he thinks is an important political victory, he should ask himself a couple of questions. How often have Westminster politicians gotten into a tussle with Alex Salmond recently and won? Moreover, how seriously have they underestimated the resilience of Scottish nationalism and its appeal to Scottish voters? The Prime Minister may soon be forced to realise he is in a fight he probably can't win, with an opponent he can't quite comprehend.

James Maxwell is a Scottish political journalist. He is based between Scotland and London.

Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's establishment suspects a Momentum conspiracy - they're right

Bernie Sanders-style organisers are determined to rewire the party's machine.  

If you wanted to understand the basic dynamics of this year’s Labour leadership contest, Brighton and Hove District Labour Party is a good microcosm. On Saturday 9 July, a day before Angela Eagle was to announce her leadership bid, hundreds of members flooded into its AGM. Despite the room having a capacity of over 250, the meeting had to be held in three batches, with members forming an orderly queue. The result of the massive turnout was clear in political terms – pro-Corbyn candidates won every position on the local executive committee. 

Many in the room hailed the turnout and the result. But others claimed that some in the crowd had engaged in abuse and harassment.The national party decided that, rather than first investigate individuals, it would suspend Brighton and Hove. Add this to the national ban on local meetings and events during the leadership election, and it is easy to see why Labour seems to have an uneasy relationship with mass politics. To put it a less neutral way, the party machine is in a state of open warfare against Corbyn and his supporters.

Brighton and Hove illustrates how local activists have continued to organise – in an even more innovative and effective way than before. On Thursday 21 July, the week following the CLP’s suspension, the local Momentum group organised a mass meeting. More than 200 people showed up, with the mood defiant and pumped up.  Rather than listen to speeches, the room then became a road test for a new "campaign meetup", a more modestly titled version of the "barnstorms" used by the Bernie Sanders campaign. Activists broke up into small groups to discuss the strategy of the campaign and then even smaller groups to organise action on a very local level. By the end of the night, 20 phonebanking sessions had been planned at a branch level over the following week. 

In the past, organising inside the Labour Party was seen as a slightly cloak and dagger affair. When the Labour Party bureaucracy expelled leftwing activists in past decades, many on went further underground, organising in semi-secrecy. Now, Momentum is doing the exact opposite. 

The emphasis of the Corbyn campaign is on making its strategy, volunteer hubs and events listings as open and accessible as possible. Interactive maps will allow local activists to advertise hundreds of events, and then contact people in their area. When they gather to phonebank in they will be using a custom-built web app which will enable tens of thousands of callers to ring hundreds of thousands of numbers, from wherever they are.

As Momentum has learned to its cost, there is a trade-off between a campaign’s openness and its ability to stage manage events. But in the new politics of the Labour party, in which both the numbers of interested people and the capacity to connect with them directly are increasing exponentially, there is simply no contest. In order to win the next general election, Labour will have to master these tactics on a much bigger scale. The leadership election is the road test. 

Even many moderates seem to accept that the days of simply triangulating towards the centre and getting cozy with the Murdoch press are over. Labour needs to reach people and communities directly with an ambitious digital strategy and an army of self-organising activists. It is this kind of mass politics that delivered a "no" vote in Greece’s referendum on the terms of the Eurozone bailout last summer – defying pretty much the whole of the media, business and political establishment. 

The problem for Corbyn's challenger, Owen Smith, is that many of his backers have an open problem with this type of mass politics. Rather than investigate allegations of abuse, they have supported the suspension of CLPs. Rather than seeing the heightened emotions that come with mass mobilisations as side-effects which needs to be controlled, they have sought to joins unconnected acts of harassment, in order to smear Jeremy Corbyn. The MP Ben Bradshaw has even seemed to accuse Momentum of organising a conspiracy to physically attack Labour MPs.

The real conspiracy is much bigger than that. Hundreds of thousands of people are arriving, enthusiastic and determined, into the Labour party. These people, and their ability to convince the communities of which they are a part, threaten Britain’s political equilibrium, both the Conservatives and the Labour establishment. When the greatest hope for Labour becomes your greatest nightmare, you have good call to feel alarmed.